Nosad Ismail Mukadam vs Santosh Shamrao Devlelar Advocate - Janugade A.R — 33/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section injuction. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 16th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHST130001582016
Next Hearing
16th April 2026
Filing Number
39/2016
Filing Date
08-02-2016
Registration No
33/2016
Registration Date
12-02-2016
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Patan
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Nosad Ismail Mukadam
Adv. Gaikwad P.K
Ikbal Husen Gadkari
Respondent(s)
Santosh Shamrao Devlelar Advocate - Janugade A.R
Laxman Babu Yedge
Shrikant Gajanan Phutane
Jayshree Dattaram Rasal
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 20-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 20-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 20-11-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 06-10-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Case: Naushaad Mukdam v. Santosh Devlekar and others | Civil Case No. 33/2016 | Patan Civil Court Outcome: The petition for interim injunction (temporary stay order) filed by the plaintiff was dismissed/rejected. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience did not favor granting the injunction. Additionally, the defendants (Defendants 3 and 4) had already obtained possession of the disputed property through valid sale deeds dated 10/10/1991 and 24/09/1993 respectively, prior to the plaintiff's court-ordered possession. The court also noted that the plaintiff could pursue their claims in a related pending case (Case No. 35/2011) and therefore did not suffer irreparable harm warranting interim relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Case: Naushaad Mukdam v. Santosh Devlekar and others | Civil Case No. 33/2016 | Patan Civil Court Outcome: The petition for interim injunction (temporary stay order) filed by the plaintiff was dismissed/rejected. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience did not favor granting the injunction. Additionally, the defendants (Defendants 3 and 4) had already obtained possession of the disputed property through valid sale deeds dated 10/10/1991 and 24/09/1993 respectively, prior to the plaintiff's court-ordered possession. The court also noted that the plaintiff could pursue their claims in a related pending case (Case No. 35/2011) and therefore did not suffer irreparable harm warranting interim relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts